Rules, standard practices and policies are all null and void when confronted with communicating the news on a new medium. Such is the case with twitter, the web application that allows users to send 140-character messages from virtually any location with at least a cell phone signal.

News organizations usually try one method for using twitter and it then becomes the standard. While some blast the news just like an RSS feed, others are talking back to their followers/readers.

“I really like the ones on twitter that participate in discussion,” says Gerard Barberi a social researcher who is active in many online communities. “Right now, only Chicago papers seem to be doing that.”

Barberi suggested RedeyeChicago and Coloneltribune were among the better news organization affiliated users that knew how to leverage the benefit of discussion in between posting news. The New York Times, which adhered to the RSS feed-like method, was among the worst.

“NYTimes.com used to get on my nerves with their twitter account — 15-20 links dumped at 4 a.m. into the twitterverse,” he says.  “They finally stopped. It was pointless following them.

The Times has multiple account that each feature a section of content, so depending on how you use twitter and how many NYTimes accounts you followed, it could completely drown out the human updates.

“I’m more likely to be responsive to humans,” he added.

But because it’s impossible to define how a news organization should use a service like twitter, I posed the question to my own followers after Nashville’s largest circulated newspaper The Tennessean , started increasing the number of linked stories per day.

From the responses I received, I’ve determined people either prefer to follow only news organizations that participate in an active discussion, or they follow because they appreciate the news being blasted. The noticeable difference between these groups seems to be their familiarity/preference for RSS. The two services are virtually cousins of each other.

Younger users on twitter mostly felt overwhelmed by a huge influx of “dead” messages — messages with no intended desire of a response. But, I really don’t think the age or experience trait holds much weight in this preference. Instead, I’d say it dealt more with how much of your social circle  (friends/family/like-minded acquaintances) used twitter as an essential means of communication.

Again, I don’t think blasting news only through the twitter account is necessarily the wrong use. However, if you have the ability to talk back to your readers and you don’t, aren’t you passing up a great opportunity? 

In the Tennessean’s case, they decided to break the mold by replying to my question with another question: “So what would you like to talk about?”

What, indeed.
—

Below were some comments I found interesting:

gmarkham    @TChed I’ll follow a news org headline feed on Twitter. Rarely click through, though.

erincubert    @TChed I was following a ton via mobile … and then WSJ went nuts, so I had to turn them off … BBC too. I like sleep more than headlines.

sgurne    @TChed I only follow one, just to know what’s going on. any more would be information overload.   about 12 hours ago from web  in reply to TChed

ChristineTatum    @TChed Interesting question. Please let me know what people tell you. And yeah, I do follow news orgs even if they “blast“ only.